posted at 11:21 am on August 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Expert shinola-stirring by Paul Bedard on a slow summer news day, but the evidence is basically one guy in Iowa reading Facebook posts from Paul fans that he can’t/won’t even cite. Other plugged-in Iowa righties say they’re not hearing anything about it from the Paulites, rather that it’s the local media that’s most interested in Cruz’s eligibility. (Surprise.) The closest we get to a smoking gun is the legislative director from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty being a tiny bit cute in saying he expects a smart lawyer like Cruz will have no problem “getting around” the natural-born requirement.

And yet, because a Cruz/Paul battle for the soul of grassroots conservatism would be the most gripping storyline of the 2016 primaries, the first inkling of conflict is bound to get attention even when there’s not much to it:

“They’re scared and they now keep bringing up the eligibility issue,” Jamie Johnson told the Washington Examiner. Johnson was coalitions director for Rick Santorum’s campaign during the 2012 Iowa caucuses, but he hopes Cruz wins the Republican nomination in 2016. “They are hitting the eligibility issue hard,” Johnson said. “They’re using third-party sources, though; they don’t want it tracked back to Campaign for Liberty [an organization that grew out of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid].”…

Johnson, who serves on the Iowa Republican Party State Central Committee, didn’t provide direct evidence that the whisper campaign is underway, but invoked his interaction with Paul’s supporters in the Iowa GOP. ”How do I know? because I talk with them,” he said. “I look at their Facebook posts and their Twitter [feeds].”

The reply from Campaign for Liberty legislative director Jeff Shipley:

“If you’re going to call yourself a true constitutionalist, well, it’s right there in the Constitution,” Shipley told the Washington Examiner during a phone interview. “Obviously, that’s something Mr. Cruz needs to address, that he’s eligible for the office.”

Shipley doesn’t think that’ll be difficult. “With the legal documents, it’s all language, and he’s a very competent lawyer, so I’m sure he can get around it,” he said.

He also addressed the claim that Campaign for Liberty is casting doubt on Cruz’s eligibility. “There probably are some Senator Paul supporters that feel threatened by Senator Cruz, and they may be saying some things, but I think that’s just kind of petty nonsense — I don’t think it’ll amount to much,” Shipley said, noting that he hadn’t heard any Campaign for Liberty people making the argument.

Paul himself said last week that he doesn’t question Cruz’s eligibility, which would make it … difficult for him to raise this later. In fact, I think the real news from Bedard’s piece is Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican website saying that political reporters he’s spoken to believe the eligibility issue will be Cruz’s “biggest hurdle” in Iowa. Really? Which rivals are going to make that an issue in the primaries? Hillary had that option against Obama five years ago and passed on it, sensing (correctly) that it would probably blow up on her by annoying undecideds and making her look desperate. If Paul or Christie or anyone else ends up reduced to navel-gazing about Cruz’s eligibility to win Iowa, that would likely mean Cruz has the caucus all but locked up. As for grassroots anti-Cruz Birtherism, the fuel for that in Obama’s case was antipathy to his liberalism; get O disqualified from office, the logic went, and you stop America’s leftward drift (or slow it, since Uncle Joe Biden was waiting in the wings). How much antipathy to the famously conservative Cruz are you likely to find in the famously conservative Iowa GOP electorate?

In other news today, Cruz reaffirmed that he stands with Rand in the dispute between him and Christie over national security. Exit question: Why would a former Santorum staffer want to set Paul and Cruz against each other this early? Hmmmm.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Geez Allah, it didn’t take long for you to put this story at the top and stir the GOP pot! I for one will not engage in a slugfest against either of these two guys. They are both rare gems in the excrement that is known as the GOP.

Let’s try to end this circular firing squad. Neither Obama nor McCain fit squarely into the “natural born citizen” category (Obama having a British father, McCain being born in Panama) but they both ran. Obviously Cruz will be eligible.

I’d prefer Rand be president, but of the others running… Let’s just say I could live with Cruz. If we’re going to attack anyone, lets go after Santorum, Christie, and all the big govt progressive republicans.

Regarding Cruz I already read a hit piece article about his College days and it said he was kind of “creepy.”Funny how they could find old College roommates of Cruz but they can’t find anyone who remembers Obama in College…

Bedard’s piece is Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican website saying that political reporters he’s spoken to believe the eligibility issue will be Cruz’s “biggest hurdle” in Iowa.

Two options: Any reporter who said this is a complete idiot who has no business covering politics or an anti-Cruz POS. I can’t see any other explanation for this statement. Or maybe “Craig Robinson” is the idiot and/or POS.

Right now the whole thing sounds like nothing but rumor/gossip. THAT SAID-one of the reasons why I’m still not that into Rand is because I don’t trust that he’s not his father’s son. If he starts attracting his father’s scumbag minions…that will be a bad thing.

So it doesn’t matter where you were born? Just as long as one of your parents was a US citizen at the time of birth you would be considered natural born citizen?

nazo311 on August 20, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Apparently. McCain was born in Panama (on a military base) and Taft(?) was also born in Canada.

Right now the whole thing sounds like nothing but rumor/gossip. THAT SAID-one of the reasons why I’m still not that into Rand is because I don’t trust that he’s not his father’s son. If he starts attracting his father’s scumbag minions…that will be a bad thing.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM

So if the independents (libertarians, Paulites) support Rand, you’ll yank your support? Too big of a tent for you?

Look, I like Rand Paul. But if he and his minions are going to secretly encourage shameful birther lies to be spread about Cruz, someone who is 100% eligible, in hopes of influencing gullible, dumb, low-info voters previously won by Huckabee and Santorum, then I’ll be very disappointed.

It’s utterly pitiful that the name of Aqua Buddha is not referenced in this post…./

ted c on August 20, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Yes, well, I’m sure we’ll get a chance to vicariously relive Rand’s days on the swim team over the next few years.

Fortunately for Obama he never did anything notable / fun / funny in college and not a single person remembers him or anything he did.

This kind of stuff is why people don’t run for president, we all have things in our past that can be construed to be problematic. Hazing freshmen (in a fraternity, football team, or um I guess swim team) is totally normal behavior in colleges, but Rand will never live this one down.

Look, I like Rand Paul. But if he and his minions are going to secretly encourage shameful birther lies to be spread about Cruz, someone who is 100% eligible, in hopes of influencing gullible, dumb, low-info voters previously won by Huckabee and Santorum, then I’ll be very disappointed.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM

First off, I doubt Rand is behind this. Second off, even if he is (which I doubt), whats the problem with questioning the “natural born” status of a dual citizen born in Canada?

Like I said, he’ll be “deemed” eligible in the same way previous contenders have been (we don’t really pay attention to that ancient piece of parchment, the constitution, anymore) and I don’t think it’s smart to make an issue out of it… but I don’t see the problem with some people talking about it. (if they are, to which this article gives no evidence)

While being a fan of Cruz and never questioning his patriotism and duty to the Constitution, I do have problem with the precedent it would set if he were to qualify as a “natural born citizen”. The creativity that could be used from such a ruling could be very problematic in the future.

STEP 1: Were you born in the territory of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 2

STEP 2: Were both your parents citizens of the US?
–if YES, STOP. You ARE a natural born citizen.
–if NO, go to STEP 3

STEP 3: Was one of your parents a citizen of the US?
–if YES, go to STEP 4
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.

STEP 4: At the time of your birth, did this parent reside in the US for at least 5 years after attaining the age of 16?
–if YES, STOP. You are a natural born citizen.
–if NO, STOP. You are not a natural born citizen.

Look, I like Rand Paul. But if he and his minions are going to secretly encourage shameful birther lies to be spread about Cruz, someone who is 100% eligible, in hopes of influencing gullible, dumb, low-info voters previously won by Huckabee and Santorum, then I’ll be very disappointed.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Without, debating the issue ad nauseam I don’t think you can say with 100% guarantee he is a “natural born citizen” since he wasn’t born in the US.

Serious question followed by some non-caps ranting: as I recall, discussing Obama biterherism/promoting the idea that he wasn’t a citizen became a bannable offense here at HotAir – am I misremembering this (I know it was at many sites, and I believe it was this way here)? So, Cruz released his birth certificate, his mother was a natural born US citizen, ergo, he’s a U.S. Citizen and …?

The only people pushing this story are a media that fear the presidential hopes of Ted Cruz, yet you guys have the front page of the most trafficked Conservative blog in the country plastered with this, including an unsourced, third-party story regarding Paul “supporters” spreading this around Iowa? I know you guys love your comment red-meat, and AP, I know you love upbraiding commenters for questioning your motives, but seriously, WTF? I can understand one post about it, but at some point you have ask yourself when covering a story that’s of interest to a relatively small group of people (all of them wanting to do political harm to Ted Cruz) turns into stone-cold concern-trolling?

Here’s an idea for your beloved clicks: maybe you can tie Mike Huckabee into it as well. Why not call up Levi Johnston and get his take, and for good measure, let’s make sure and get MeggieMac’s reaction as well. I’m sure Nicholle Wallace has soem thoughts, as well as Steve Schmidtt. When they discuss this on The View in the next day or two, let’s give that lots of attention as well because it’s a slow news day and god knows there’s absolutely nothing going on in the country and the world right now that deserves the attention that multiple Cruz birther threads are taking.

Look, I like Rand Paul. But if he and his minions are going to secretly encourage shameful birther lies to be spread about Cruz, someone who is 100% eligible, in hopes of influencing gullible, dumb, low-info voters previously won by Huckabee and Santorum, then I’ll be very disappointed.

bluegill on August 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Don’t blame Rand. If doubt he has anything to do with this Cruz eligibility nonsense, but, if he does, I’m sure Sarah “I’m on Team Rand” Palin put him up to it. She’s always doing things like this.

Hey, if Santorum and Biden were the nominees, it might be the first time you would have to add the IQ of the two major party nominees together to get triple digits.

DRayRaven on August 20, 2013 at 11:57 AM

I would laugh if we ended up with Biden v Santorum. There’s no way I could ever vote for either one, that would show me that I truly have deep disagreements on basically everything with my fellow citizens.

It’s good as is too, though many on the left/right will type something to the contrary over a million times.

I will smile a lot, especially when the leftists, the media and Cruz’s competition from the right will do it.

I wish it would go to the SC, but the bastids, threatened by the NSA, will not do it.

Roberts is a disgrace for altering the law to pass obama’care’. He should have been a real man, in spite of the threats. It will have dire consequences upon the land. No, it’s not related to this, but the judges are not free.

The Ronulans…absolutely. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives.
I remember them @ the Chicago tea parties…wearing their ‘Ask me the truth about 9/11′ shirts. I’d mention my Jewish background to them and they’d accuse me of working for the Mossad or whatever. In Lubbock, the Ronbots tend to be your run-of-the-mill Jew-hating conspiracy theorists. there are a few that seem a bit rational-and they’re active in the county GOP. The others can go rot.

as I recall, discussing Obama biterherism/promoting the idea that he wasn’t a citizen became a bannable offense here at HotAir

Really? When? Going off-topic repeatedly is a bannable offense but I don’t recall banning anyone for discussing O’s birth certificate in a thread about O’s birth certificate. Of which there were many, by the way. Check the archives.

The only people pushing this story are a media that fear the presidential hopes of Ted Cruz, yet you guys have the front page of the most trafficked Conservative blog in the country plastered with this

Wish that were true, but I’m pretty sure it’s not.

but seriously, WTF? I can understand one post about it, but at some point you have ask yourself when covering a story that’s of interest to a relatively small group of people (all of them wanting to do political harm to Ted Cruz) turns into stone-cold concern-trolling?

There are two reasons people are chattering about this now. One: Trump was asked about it on one of the Sunday shows and raised a question about it. Then Coulter did the same thing on Geraldo’s show. Two: Cruz himself started talking about it. He released the birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, and then yesterday he said he’d renounce his Canadian citizenship. Which is smart: He’s getting this out now to be done with it well in advance of 2016.

Show me one post, including this one, where I’ve been even mildly credulous about Birther claims towards Cruz. Didn’t I write last week that we should abandon the natural-born clause entirely? Some of you guys are such babies when a story that’s not completely flattering to one of your heroes gets attention on righty blogs, even if the blog’s defending the subject.

I never been to those sites and don’t intend to, however let me say I’m not going to take yours and bluegill’s word for it that there are no questions of qualification to be president (notice I didn’t say he wasn’t a citizen which he clearly is).

You may want to quit practicing law, which you are clearly not qualified to do, and have Cruz ask the proper question to the court. That way it will never be an issue.

I don’t think that any commenter here would honestly argue that “born citizen” is exactly equivalent to “citizen”.

Clearly the word “born” has meaning, and “born citizen” is a subset of “citizen”.

Why then, do some not use that same logic with regards to the word “natural”? They contradict the logic above and claim that “born citizen” is exactly equivalent to “natural born citizen”.

The word “natural” has meaning, and “natural born citizen” is a subset of “born citizen”.

What is the meaning of the word “natural” in this usage?

Natural Law.

A “natural born citizen” doesn’t need any man-made law to make them a citizen. They are naturally born citizens because they are “born in the country, to parents who are its citizens”. They have no possible ties to citizenship of a foreign country or subjecthood of a foreign sovereign.

Ensuring no foreign ties at all for our Commander in Chief is precisely what (Federalist Papers author and later first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) John Jay intended when he wrote to George Washington (then President of the Constitutional Convention):

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The whole idea was to prevent any foreign influence in the Commander in Chief of our military.

Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal are all ineligible for the office because they were not “born in the country, to parents who are its citizens”. At birth, each of them had ties, either by birth location or by citizenship/subjecthood of a parent, to a foreign country. That disqualifies them all, because none of them qualify under the grandfater clause of citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1789).

I have sought a Constitutional Lawyer or Scholar here at HA for nearly two years. Alas there are none. Just opinions. I believe it to still be unsettled law. I do not know factually any different. I will stick with Dave)’s flow chart until a better one is presented.

Um, Cruz was a citizen when he was born, so he is by definition a “natural born citizen.”

Birthers should declare up front whether they’re racist or just all-around whack-job conspiracy theorists who take sites like infowars seriously.

DRayRaven on August 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Okay, so if I move to (pick your country), impregnate a local woman, my kid would then be eligible to be president assuming he lived in the US for the requisite number of years? Even if he’d never set foot in the US until he was 25?

I’m not trying to be a wiseguy here, but I am trying to understand how “naturally born citizen” can mean anyone born to a single American parent anywhere in the world.

I like Paul and Cruz both. If Rand and his supporters want my support, instead of trying to disqualify an opponent they should try competing for my vote. One reason I prefer Ted Cruz over Rand is because Rand seems to support amnesty for illegals, even if he voted against the Senate bill seemingly only for political reasons. Ted Cruz isn’t exactly strong on the topic either, IMO, but he’s a bit stronger than Rand.

As Alinsky said, “the issue is never the issue.” “Eligibility” is not the issue. Here’s the issue: every time Cruz appears before the media and at every debate he’ll be asked again and again in every way possible about his “eligibility.” THAT is the issue. By the end of the campaign the Left and media will have planted massive LIV doubt about Cruz beyond his eligibility.

Until republicans lean how to deal with Alinskyism, learn how to preempt it, flip it and go on the offensive, this will never stop.

As for grassroots anti-Cruz Birtherism, the fuel for that in Obama’s case was antipathy to his liberalism; get O disqualified from office, the logic went, and you stop America’s leftward drift (or slow it, since Uncle Joe Biden was waiting in the wings). How much antipathy to the famously conservative Cruz are you likely to find in the famously conservative Iowa GOP electorate?

But it’s not the conservatives who are going to make an issue of this. It will be the left-tards. Which we’ve already seen wrt the MSM.

They’ve already given more airtime to the issue around Cruz than they ever did with Obama. I’m not suggesting it deserved any more legitimacy in Obama’s case; while some of the arguments were initially intriguing to me, it very quickly became obvious that it was just conspiracy theory bait for the mongers. But the fact that the press is acting all credulous about the issue with Cruz just demonstrates the battlefield prepping that is going on in anticipation of the ’16 primaries.

Cruz is gonna get hammered with this by the Left. And the MSM will go right along with it, demonstrating absolutely no caring at all about the hypocrisy involved. I won’t accuse them of a lack of self-awareness. I think they are completely aware of the double-standard.

They just don’t give a sh*t. Who’s gonna call them on it? You?

Unfortunately, the game we are playing is completely rigged. We don’t stand a chance, until we actually invade all of those same institutions the Leftists took over starting the middle of last century. We have to take their playbook and completely turn it on them. It’s going to take decades, which we no longer have.

We thought we could leave well enough alone. We were wrong. Now we get to clean up the sh*tpiles the Left has dumped all over the place. And people like Cruz, who appears to be as legit a conservative candidate for office as I’ve seen in years, will get crucified by the power-hungry Leftist institutions and LIVs who don’t have two braincells to rub together.

I agree, the SC should settle it, but they won’t. Consequently we have to go with what we know of the law, so far, and with the people deciding. I wish desperately for the SC to take the case. It’s one of the main reasons I want Cruz to run. It goes back many years and was never settled, as you say.

I’m sorry that I read Deve’s chart in chunks, and not all the way, first :( Never a problem to be sorry. These things are very important, if we are to still be a land of laws.

Allah, well said! I written several times (not being critical of Cruz) that he should resolve this issue early and if need be get a court ruling similar to McCain in ’08. If you really did support him you would ask for the same, because it will be an issue all the way to election day in ’16 otherwise.

Instead the second you make this recommendation you are labeled a birther.

Don’t blame Rand. If doubt he has anything to do with this Cruz eligibility nonsense, but, if he does, I’m sure Sarah “I’m on Team Rand” Palin put him up to it. She’s always doing things like this.
steebo77 on August 20, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I respect your views, but I want to hold back here from laying blame. Rand and his team may be innocent. And, though I don’t think even the notoriously divisive Palin would sink to such a level with the birther garbage, her worshipful, dim-witted fans might. They have been spreading the birther nonsense here on the pages of HotAir.

I’m with AP on this, though. Santorum would have something to gain from two superior conservative candidates getting into it, allowing the second-rate Santorum to sneak by.

It just bugs the hell out of me that this nonsense, where reproducing a post that’s unflattering to a conservative hero is deemed verboten even for the purpose of critiquing it, is already starting two years out from the primaries. Usually people don’t go into SPEAK NOT AN ILL WORD mode until the debates start.

His position (a modified libertarian position) makes more sense to me than any of the pandering politicians out there.

In DC, they’re not against amnesty for any reason other then we are.

Rand wants to see free trade — free flow of materials, ideas, and yes labor. However, our welfare system throws a huge wrench in the basic market-set supply and demand. So what should we do?

Clear answer is to shut down welfare, but I don’t see how sending the entire US army to the southern border is going to fix anything. Especially since the government seems dead set on letting people overstay visas, claim asylum then disappear, claim DREAM status then disappear, etc.

Also, the biggest incentive for hiring illegals is not that they work for cheap (they don’t, really) but that they work under the table — you pay them in cash, some weeks they may work 20 hours, some weeks 50 hours, but you don’t have to pay for an accountant to keep track of healthcare, overtime, etc etc. When OCare is implemented, it will just get worse.

Make our labor laws easier, and I guarantee a lot of guys in construction (and other industries) would rather pay some 18 year old US citizen kid the $12 an hour cash for a laborer job then an illegal who doesn’t speak the same language. We have a huge problem in the construction industry — the “feeder system” (laborers) is full of illegals, so while many carpenters now are citizens, when they begin retiring, there is no one in the hopper (who made their way up through the ranks) to take over other then illegals.

Cruz is gonna get hammered with this by the Left. And the MSM will go right along with it, demonstrating absolutely no caring at all about the hypocrisy involved. I won’t accuse them of a lack of self-awareness. I think they are completely aware of the double-standard.

The left will be far more concerned with painting Cruz as the most radical! candidate! ever! than to worry about his eligibility. It won’t be an issue in the general election.

Allah, well said! I written several times (not being critical of Cruz) that he should resolve this issue early and if need be get a court ruling similar to McCain in ’08. If you really did support him you would ask for the same, because it will be an issue all the way to election day in ’16 otherwise.

Yes, Cruz is a smart guy (needless to say). He wants people talking about this now because pretty soon we’ll all be bored with it and it’ll be old news come 2016.

The only people pushing this story are a media that fear the presidential hopes of Ted Cruz, yet you guys have the front page of the most trafficked Conservative blog in the country plastered with this, including an unsourced, third-party story regarding Paul “supporters” spreading this around Iowa?

King B on August 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM

The ‘media’ – as you guys envision it – is 100% johnny-come-lately to this. It’s started as and remains primarily an internal squabble.
Allah’s post yesterday also tried the ‘blame the media’ angle. But he seems more enlightened in his post/comments today.

Yes, Cruz is a smart guy (needless to say). He wants people talking about this now because pretty soon we’ll all be bored with it and it’ll be old news come 2016.
Allahpundit on August 20, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Exactly what I’m hoping. Get this hashed out and over with now.

They’re going to try to label Cruz as “insane.” It’s what Paul Sadler tried to do in TX.

They want to group Cruz in with Bachmann, a wonderful woman they like to call “crazy.”

I’m beginning to entertain the notion that steps 1 and 2 should be the litmus test. This flowchart describes the “rules” established for determining birth citizenship. There’s something to be said for establishing/maintaining a high bar for NBC.

The closest we get to a smoking gun is the legislative director from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty being a tiny bit cute in saying he expects a smart lawyer like Cruz will have no problem “getting around” the natural-born requirement.

Grrrr. That “cute” remark makes me bristle. Ron Paul and his Liberty legislative director need to be very careful about remarks like that. I have gradually come to respect Rand Paul, and conceivably might even support him in a campaign for President. That support won’t happen if his dad suggests through his director that Cruz is legally unfit for the office. I’m sorry, but that charge is bogus, and Republicans who make the charge are going to get a whole lot of blowback. (As for Dems, I have no expectations for them and they are free to lie and cheat as they usually do anyway.)

The situation reminds me of what happened with Michele Bachmann when she ran last election. Very stupidly, she allowed her manager Ed Rollins to discredit and ridicule Sarah Palin. Sarah didn’t run anyway, and I think there would have been a good chance that if Bachmann hadn’t acted stupidly, many Palin admirers (like myself) might have rolled over once Palin dropped out and backed her (that is, Bachmann). Instead, all Bachmann got was a world of anger, distrust and resentment. Bachmann blew it, and I’d hate Paul to do the same.

I don’t even think Cruz ever was a Canadian…he was born bef. 1974, when I believe that Canada granted double citizenship…still, he ‘renounces’ that citizenship, just because some Texas newspaper wrote about it. Talk about a shrews dude!!!

I don’t even think Cruz ever was a Canadian…he was born bef. 1974, when I believe that Canada granted double citizenship…still, he ‘renounces’ that citizenship, just because some Texas newspaper wrote about it. Talk about a shrews dude!!!

Bottom line: No one’s going to care about this once the campaign really gets going. I think Cruz is smartly letting people play with this goofy shiny news object for a week and then we’ll be back to immigration and defunding O-Care and it’ll all be forgotten.

She can not divorce herself from obama, no matter how much the two clans hate each other. He won’t support her.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2013 at 12:23 PM

I don’t know, Killary has access to a well-oiled machine that brushes aside incidents which would get other people tossed onto death row. She could make life hard for the Dog Eater if he decided to withhold his stamp of approval.

Allah’s post yesterday also tried the ‘blame the media’ angle. But he seems more enlightened in his post/comments today.

Please. If you think the media isn’t enjoying this story as payback to righty Birthers who hassled Obama for years over his birth certificate, you’re kidding yourself.

Allahpundit on August 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Of course some are taking pleasure in the irony. But most understand there’s little similiar. But you said something about how they (‘the media’) didn’t want to look into it because they were beholden to/protective of their ‘precious’ Obama, or something. And I’m saying they were dismissive of it because it was idiotic and without any merit at all.
Cruz actually being born in Canada makes it massively less idiotic a debate.
(Though still a silly one.)

The situation reminds me of what happened with Michele Bachmann when she ran last election. Very stupidly, she allowed her manager Ed Rollins to discredit and ridicule Sarah Palin. Sarah didn’t run anyway, and I think there would have been a good chance that if Bachmann hadn’t acted stupidly, many Palin admirers (like myself) might have rolled over once Palin dropped out and backed her (that is, Bachmann). Instead, all Bachmann got was a world of anger, distrust and resentment. Bachmann blew it, and I’d hate Paul to do the same.

Burke on August 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Careful there Pardner…
We have a certain poster on here who would dispute your post..

I’m not going to mention any Bish…oops, names but Bachmann Mopped the floor with Palin…

Yes, I read the post. This story was already in the headlines previous to your posting about it so I figured it would be sufficiently commented on there.

Probably half of our posts each day are headline items first. Every one of Ed’s early posts today — aid being cut to Egypt, Kerry reinstating Benghazi employees, Cruz renouncing his Canadian citizenship — was posted in headlines before he got to it. Are you complaining in those threads too that we’re repeating material?

Probably half of our posts each day are headline items first. Every one of Ed’s early posts today — aid being cut to Egypt, Kerry reinstating Benghazi employees, Cruz renouncing his Canadian citizenship — was posted in headlines before he got to it. Are you complaining in those threads too that we’re repeating material?

Allahpundit on August 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I’ll never complain Allah…..then again, I like to post
endless, inane comments….

Media threats, the NSA debacle…this one is soooo huge and now they truly stung the source…all that disc – destruction b/s. All will be printed, just in due time, when it’s most inopportune for obama and Britain, the once Great, but only an obama tail any more.

Careful there Pardner…
We have a certain poster on here who would dispute your post..

I’m not going to mention any Bish…oops, names but Bachmann Mopped the floor with Palin…

ToddPA on August 20, 2013 at 12:38 PM

It’s true that by ridiculing and disparaging Palin, Bachmann made some of her supporters happy. And some of them might have even jumped for joy, like Bi…I mean, whomever. That’s probably why she let Rollins do what he did. But she lost a whole lot more than she gained, I think.

Tea Partiers should not fight other Tea Partiers. They can fight McCain and Jeb and Krispy and even Rubio all they want (because we all know Rubio for what he really is at this point). But the good ones can’t go after each other or they’re going to rightly suffer for it. That’s a rule I’m making right now.

Tea Partiers should not fight other Tea Partiers. They can fight McCain and Jeb and Krispy and even Rubio all they want (because we all know Rubio for what he really is at this point). But the good ones can’t go after each other or they’re going to rightly suffer for it. That’s a rule I’m making right now.

Burke on August 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

I’ll let you in on a little secret….

I’m a PALIN REPUBLICAN.

She can whip the entire GOP’s azz with one beaver pelt tied
behind her back….